If you died, and you actually went up to the heavenly gates (or whatever afterlife you happen to believe in) wouldn't it simply be more prudent to assume that you existed in a simulation or something? How would you even know that "God" was telling you the truth? He could simply be some sort of higher entity that had a reason. What actual proof would there be that God is omnipotent, given that you are (A) not omnipotent as well, and (B) cannot categorically confirm anything because your mind is easily manipulable?

I'm not trying to be an obnoxious New Atheist, I'm just posing a problem with the whole "afterlife" thing.

"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."

At 6/7/2013 11:02:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:If you died, and you actually went up to the heavenly gates (or whatever afterlife you happen to believe in) wouldn't it simply be more prudent to assume that you existed in a simulation or something? How would you even know that "God" was telling you the truth? He could simply be some sort of higher entity that had a reason. What actual proof would there be that God is omnipotent, given that you are (A) not omnipotent as well, and (B) cannot categorically confirm anything because your mind is easily manipulable?

I'm not trying to be an obnoxious New Atheist, I'm just posing a problem with the whole "afterlife" thing.

I'm going to assume that the answer will be the same as the answer for why they believe on earth despite the same circumstances: faith.

Though, to be honest, I think if someone found themselves in an afterlife, they'd be likely to take it at face value regardless of their original faith (though if it was different than they expected, they'd probably try to adjust their framework to make it fit). I know I'd be likely to take it at least mostly at face value, and I don't believe there is one at all.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 6/7/2013 11:02:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:If you died, and you actually went up to the heavenly gates (or whatever afterlife you happen to believe in) wouldn't it simply be more prudent to assume that you existed in a simulation or something? How would you even know that "God" was telling you the truth? He could simply be some sort of higher entity that had a reason. What actual proof would there be that God is omnipotent, given that you are (A) not omnipotent as well, and (B) cannot categorically confirm anything because your mind is easily manipulable?

I'm not trying to be an obnoxious New Atheist, I'm just posing a problem with the whole "afterlife" thing.

I'm going to assume that the answer will be the same as the answer for why they believe on earth despite the same circumstances: faith.

Though, to be honest, I think if someone found themselves in an afterlife, they'd be likely to take it at face value regardless of their original faith (though if it was different than they expected, they'd probably try to adjust their framework to make it fit). I know I'd be likely to take it at least mostly at face value, and I don't believe there is one at all.

No, why shouldn't they assume they aren't in a simulation ("faith" is not why we assume the world is real)? Remember what David Hume said about miracles.

"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."

At 6/7/2013 11:02:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:If you died, and you actually went up to the heavenly gates (or whatever afterlife you happen to believe in) wouldn't it simply be more prudent to assume that you existed in a simulation or something? How would you even know that "God" was telling you the truth? He could simply be some sort of higher entity that had a reason. What actual proof would there be that God is omnipotent, given that you are (A) not omnipotent as well, and (B) cannot categorically confirm anything because your mind is easily manipulable?

I'm not trying to be an obnoxious New Atheist, I'm just posing a problem with the whole "afterlife" thing.

I'm going to assume that the answer will be the same as the answer for why they believe on earth despite the same circumstances: faith.

Though, to be honest, I think if someone found themselves in an afterlife, they'd be likely to take it at face value regardless of their original faith (though if it was different than they expected, they'd probably try to adjust their framework to make it fit). I know I'd be likely to take it at least mostly at face value, and I don't believe there is one at all.

No, why shouldn't they assume they aren't in a simulation ("faith" is not why we assume the world is real)?

I meant why the believe in their chosen god or afterlife now, not why the believe the world is real now, though in the end one could argue that we presume the world is real and not a simulation based on faith alone (in fact, there's an argument about how we might be more plausibly in a simulation: http://en.wikipedia.org... )

Remember what David Hume said about miracles.

He started that out by saying that the only way that we can judge between two empirical claims is by weighing the evidence; this is thinking many theists explicitly reject in favor of faith.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 6/7/2013 11:02:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:If you died, and you actually went up to the heavenly gates (or whatever afterlife you happen to believe in) wouldn't it simply be more prudent to assume that you existed in a simulation or something? How would you even know that "God" was telling you the truth? He could simply be some sort of higher entity that had a reason. What actual proof would there be that God is omnipotent, given that you are (A) not omnipotent as well, and (B) cannot categorically confirm anything because your mind is easily manipulable?

I'm not trying to be an obnoxious New Atheist, I'm just posing a problem with the whole "afterlife" thing.

I'm going to assume that the answer will be the same as the answer for why they believe on earth despite the same circumstances: faith.

Though, to be honest, I think if someone found themselves in an afterlife, they'd be likely to take it at face value regardless of their original faith (though if it was different than they expected, they'd probably try to adjust their framework to make it fit). I know I'd be likely to take it at least mostly at face value, and I don't believe there is one at all.

No, why shouldn't they assume they aren't in a simulation ("faith" is not why we assume the world is real)?

I meant why the believe in their chosen god or afterlife now, not why the believe the world is real now, though in the end one could argue that we presume the world is real and not a simulation based on faith alone

Really? Upon what grounds do you assume the world is real, rather than some sort of simulation? It's essentially solipsism, and solipsism can't be disproven. The main reason we generally assume reality is real and don't take the solipsistic approach is Occam's Razor, and the lack of a difference in consequences. Which can be argued to be faith. It's not necessarily an argument I'd make, but it's one I think I would have a hard time fully disagreeing with, depending primarily on philosophical definitions.

You recognize that the rationalwiki article doesn't defeat the argument, right? It points out some questions in the argument's premises, but considering, again, that it's essentially a form of solipsism, it can't actually refute the argument fully.

Remember what David Hume said about miracles.

He started that out by saying that the only way that we can judge between two empirical claims is by weighing the evidence; this is thinking many theists explicitly reject in favor of faith.

His conclusion, I mean.

Right, but you can't get to the conclusion if you don't accept the premises.

P1: A=BP2: AC: Therefore B.

If you reject P1, you can't get to the C from P2 alone. And if you reject both Ps, you can't get to C at all.

Hume's argument is one already rejected by many theists; in their cases at least, that they don't do it on rational grounds is why they're theists.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 6/7/2013 11:02:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:If you died, and you actually went up to the heavenly gates (or whatever afterlife you happen to believe in) wouldn't it simply be more prudent to assume that you existed in a simulation or something?

I do assume that some what but more like animation. As science hints to us that matter is void and that sound actually holds together, i.e. Word of God. Science also hints that maybe we have multiple dimensions. Maybe we are living in them right now but are only aware of the ones we are in.

How would you even know that "God" was telling you the truth?

I do not see why we would think He is a liar. Why would He need to life about anything if He could just make do what He wanted anyway. It appears we have fre choice and will and that goes with a loving being.

He could simply be some sort of higher entity that had a reason.

I think that is exactly what we think.

What actual proof would there be that God is omnipotent, given that you are (A) not omnipotent as well, and (B) cannot categorically confirm anything because your mind is easily manipulable?

This does not follow like above. If God is God then he could just force us to do whatever and there would be no need for deception at all.

I'm not trying to be an obnoxious New Atheist, I'm just posing a problem with the whole "afterlife" thing.

Asking questions are always good.

Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."

Really? Upon what grounds do you assume the world is real, rather than some sort of simulation? It's essentially solipsism, and solipsism can't be disproven. The main reason we generally assume reality is real and don't take the solipsistic approach is Occam's Razor, and the lack of a difference in consequences. Which can be argued to be faith.

No. It is not "faith" under any definition of the word. When the hell did I talk about disproving anything (and yes, solipsism can be disproven, but that's for another day)?

You recognize that the rationalwiki article doesn't defeat the argument, right? It points out some questions in the argument's premises, but considering, again, that it's essentially a form of solipsism, it can't actually refute the argument fully.

No, it isn't a form of solipsism at all. PLEASE stop acting like you have a clue about these things. Solipsism holds that nothing can be reasonably assumed to exist other than the mind. If I were merely being simulated, something else would almost certainly have to exist to simulate me, therefore it isn't a "form of solipsism."

What do you mean "refute the argument fully?" "Refute" does not remotely imply "categorically eliminating the possibility" given that Bostrom was making the claim and has the complete burden of proof.

Remember what David Hume said about miracles.

He started that out by saying that the only way that we can judge between two empirical claims is by weighing the evidence; this is thinking many theists explicitly reject in favor of faith.

His conclusion, I mean.

Right, but you can't get to the conclusion if you don't accept the premises.

P1: A=BP2: AC: Therefore B.

If you reject P1, you can't get to the C from P2 alone. And if you reject both Ps, you can't get to C at all.

Hume's argument is one already rejected by many theists; in their cases at least, that they don't do it on rational grounds is why they're theists.

Occam's Razor is more like what I'm thinking of. Assuming that you are are being simulated is an obvious conclusion, while assuming that the entity that is preserving you is the complete and all-knowing master of all existence is an incredibly huge one.

"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."

No. It is not "faith" under any definition of the word. When the hell did I talk about disproving anything (and yes, solipsism can be disproven, but that's for another day)?

Oh, really? First off, "under any definition of the word"? BS. "Faith. N. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.". Overly simplistic? Yes. Not generally used in that manner when formally discussing philsoophy? Yes, again. But I would urge you to buy a dictionary before making such foolish claims.

And please, show my your "proof", considering it has never been sufficiently done by people who actually spent years studying the subject?

No, it isn't a form of solipsism at all. PLEASE stop acting like you have a clue about these things.

I know it's fun to lapse into insults, but c'mon now. Would you have been happier if I just said "similar to" solipsism? To claim that I don't have a clue is a claim without warrant. But thanks for playing the "I'm going to cover the weaknesses in my argument with bluster". Be sure to take your home edition with you on your way out.

Solipsism holds that nothing can be reasonably assumed to exist other than the mind. If I were merely being simulated, something else would almost certainly have to exist to simulate me, therefore it isn't a "form of solipsism."

Solipsism also holds that everything that isn't the mind is unreal, which would therefore make it some kind of simulation.

It's not identical to traditional solipsism, which is why I didn't call theme exactly equivalent. Pretending they're totally different, however, despite their obvious similarities, while throwing around insults and baseless claims about what you think you can prove, serves no purpose.

What do you mean "refute the argument fully?" "Refute" does not remotely imply "categorically eliminating the possibility" given that Bostrom was making the claim and has the complete burden of proof.

Riiiight. And they questioned some assumptions, but they were unable to completely refute them, for the same reasons that solipsism cannot be refuted. But I forgot, you have a truly marvelous proof of solipsism's invalidity, which this forum is too narrow to contain.

Remember what David Hume said about miracles.

He started that out by saying that the only way that we can judge between two empirical claims is by weighing the evidence; this is thinking many theists explicitly reject in favor of faith.

His conclusion, I mean.

Right, but you can't get to the conclusion if you don't accept the premises.

P1: A=BP2: AC: Therefore B.

If you reject P1, you can't get to the C from P2 alone. And if you reject both Ps, you can't get to C at all.

Hume's argument is one already rejected by many theists; in their cases at least, that they don't do it on rational grounds is why they're theists.

Occam's Razor is more like what I'm thinking of. Assuming that you are are being simulated is an obvious conclusion, while assuming that the entity that is preserving you is the complete and all-knowing master of all existence is an incredibly huge one.

It's a conclusion they already accept, though, so pretending that they would examine further evidence that actually supports their claim (though, as you note, is insufficient) in a way they've explicitly rejected already seems foolish.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

No. It is not "faith" under any definition of the word. When the hell did I talk about disproving anything (and yes, solipsism can be disproven, but that's for another day)?

Oh, really? First off, "under any definition of the word"? BS. "Faith. N. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.". Overly simplistic? Yes. Not generally used in that manner when formally discussing philsoophy? Yes, again. But I would urge you to buy a dictionary before making such foolish claims.

Faith is belief that is not based on evidence.

And please, show my your "proof", considering it has never been sufficiently done by people who actually spent years studying the subject?

I didn't say I had proof, I said proof was theoretically possible. If one could, say, prove that everything that could exist necessarily existed, then that would effectively disprove solipsism.

No, it isn't a form of solipsism at all. PLEASE stop acting like you have a clue about these things.

I know it's fun to lapse into insults, but c'mon now. Would you have been happier if I just said "similar to" solipsism? To claim that I don't have a clue is a claim without warrant. But thanks for playing the "I'm going to cover the weaknesses in my argument with bluster". Be sure to take your home edition with you on your way out.

I wasn't semantically quibbling with your statement; you were using your claim that solipsism could never be "disproven" to a semantic claim that no argument in favor of solipsism could ever be refuted given that solipsism could never be refuted.

Solipsism holds that nothing can be reasonably assumed to exist other than the mind. If I were merely being simulated, something else would almost certainly have to exist to simulate me, therefore it isn't a "form of solipsism."

Solipsism also holds that everything that isn't the mind is unreal, which would therefore make it some kind of simulation.

No, it wouldn't. These are very clearly defined terms which you are egregiously misusing.

It's not identical to traditional solipsism, which is why I didn't call theme exactly equivalent. Pretending they're totally different, however, despite their obvious similarities, while throwing around insults and baseless claims about what you think you can prove, serves no purpose.

No, they have different characteristics that distincts them from each other. I can't even grasp what you're rambling about here. "Pretending that they're totally different?" Wtf?

What do you mean "refute the argument fully?" "Refute" does not remotely imply "categorically eliminating the possibility" given that Bostrom was making the claim and has the complete burden of proof.

Riiiight. And they questioned some assumptions, but they were unable to completely refute them, for the same reasons that solipsism cannot be refuted. But I forgot, you have a truly marvelous proof of solipsism's invalidity, which this forum is too narrow to contain.

You Are. Stupid.

What the hell do you mean, "for the same reason that solipsism cannot be refuted?" It's not about CATEGORICALLY ELIMINATING THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING SIMULATED, IT'S ABOUT REFUTING BOSTROM'S CLAIM THAT WE PROBABLY WERE. THIS IS NOT A DIFFICULT CONCEPT.

Remember what David Hume said about miracles.

He started that out by saying that the only way that we can judge between two empirical claims is by weighing the evidence; this is thinking many theists explicitly reject in favor of faith.

His conclusion, I mean.

Right, but you can't get to the conclusion if you don't accept the premises.

P1: A=BP2: AC: Therefore B.

If you reject P1, you can't get to the C from P2 alone. And if you reject both Ps, you can't get to C at all.

Hume's argument is one already rejected by many theists; in their cases at least, that they don't do it on rational grounds is why they're theists.

Occam's Razor is more like what I'm thinking of. Assuming that you are are being simulated is an obvious conclusion, while assuming that the entity that is preserving you is the complete and all-knowing master of all existence is an incredibly huge one.

It's a conclusion they already accept, though, so pretending that they would examine further evidence that actually supports their claim (though, as you note, is insufficient) in a way they've explicitly rejected already seems foolish.

It seems that you've decided to give up even attempting to contribute.

"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."

No. It is not "faith" under any definition of the word. When the hell did I talk about disproving anything (and yes, solipsism can be disproven, but that's for another day)?

Oh, really? First off, "under any definition of the word"? BS. "Faith. N. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.". Overly simplistic? Yes. Not generally used in that manner when formally discussing philsoophy? Yes, again. But I would urge you to buy a dictionary before making such foolish claims.

Faith is belief that is not based on evidence.

That's an overly simplistic definition, since there are many different kinds of things which might be considered "evidence", that you wouldn't accept, but that someone else might. It is also a definition which coincides with my original claim.

I also like how I pointed out that your claim "under any definition of the word" was simply and categorically false, and your response was to assert your own definition.

You were wrong. You spoke out of turn and made an overbroad statement. It would be honest of you to admit it.

And please, show my your "proof", considering it has never been sufficiently done by people who actually spent years studying the subject?

I didn't say I had proof, I said proof was theoretically possible. If one could, say, prove that everything that could exist necessarily existed, then that would effectively disprove solipsism.

You did NOT say it was "theoretically possible". You said it CAN be done, implying you could do it. But if you'd like to say THIS is what you meant, that's fine, but it's akin to saying "If solispsism could be disproved, it could be disproved".

No, it isn't a form of solipsism at all. PLEASE stop acting like you have a clue about these things.

I know it's fun to lapse into insults, but c'mon now. Would you have been happier if I just said "similar to" solipsism? To claim that I don't have a clue is a claim without warrant. But thanks for playing the "I'm going to cover the weaknesses in my argument with bluster". Be sure to take your home edition with you on your way out.

I wasn't semantically quibbling with your statement; you were using your claim that solipsism could never be "disproven" to a semantic claim that no argument in favor of solipsism could ever be refuted given that solipsism could never be refuted.

Solipsism is unfalsifiable. And no, you were quibbling with the statement, because I said X was a form of solpsism, and you said it wasn't "at all". So now I've qualified my statement to "similar to", because unlike you apparently, I can recognize when a statement I've made was either not clear enough, or even not precise enough. I'm tempted to pull an Apeiron on you and call you out for violating the principle of charity, but I think I'll just stick to questioning whether you're being an intentional hypocrite by pretending you said things you did not, in fact, say, (but perhaps intended to) when trying to defend yourself, while at the same time trying to take a literal view of things I've typed with neither respect nor slack.

Solipsism holds that nothing can be reasonably assumed to exist other than the mind. If I were merely being simulated, something else would almost certainly have to exist to simulate me, therefore it isn't a "form of solipsism."

Solipsism also holds that everything that isn't the mind is unreal, which would therefore make it some kind of simulation.

No, it wouldn't. These are very clearly defined terms which you are egregiously misusing.

No, I am not. If a thing is not real, yet it is experienced, that experience is a simulation of a real experience. It's a pretty simple concept, that I am not misusing in the slightest. Fundamentally, a complex computer program and a dream are both simulations of experiences.

It's not identical to traditional solipsism, which is why I didn't call theme exactly equivalent. Pretending they're totally different, however, despite their obvious similarities, while throwing around insults and baseless claims about what you think you can prove, serves no purpose.

No, they have different characteristics that distincts them from each other. I can't even grasp what you're rambling about here. "Pretending that they're totally different?" Wtf?

Really? You dismissed something out of hand because you felt I was equating them. You said they weren't the same thing "at all". I pointed out that they are fundamentally similar: they're both unfalsifiable claims about the nature of reality. The only major difference is the science-fiction theme and acceptance of other sentiences.

What do you mean "refute the argument fully?" "Refute" does not remotely imply "categorically eliminating the possibility" given that Bostrom was making the claim and has the complete burden of proof.

Riiiight. And they questioned some assumptions, but they were unable to completely refute them, for the same reasons that solipsism cannot be refuted. But I forgot, you have a truly marvelous proof of solipsism's invalidity, which this forum is too narrow to contain.

You Are. Stupid.

What the hell do you mean, "for the same reason that solipsism cannot be refuted?" It's not about CATEGORICALLY ELIMINATING THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING SIMULATED, IT'S ABOUT REFUTING BOSTROM'S CLAIM THAT WE PROBABLY WERE. THIS IS NOT A DIFFICULT CONCEPT.

Ad hominem based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts here. Reread the article. They don't, and are incapable, of refuting the claim. Because it's fundamentally unfalsifiable. If it's possible to create a simulation, and it's possible that a society creates a simulation, then it's more likely than not that we're in a simulation, based solely on the infinite regress in which there is 1 real world, and a possibly infinite number of simulated worlds. We can tweak the formula all day long, but the basic premise is that if we could create a universe within a universe, ad infinitem, it would be infinitely more probable that we were somewhere in the "simulation" stack than in the "real world" stack of 1. We don't know that it's even possible, of course. The entire debate was in the realm of the hypothetical, by definition. Just as we don't actually know if classically solipsistic worlds are possible.

Calling me stupid doesn't change that this concept, which is a similar one to that made of solipsism, says that the reality we experience cannot be fundamentally proven to be "real". It just makes you sound like a high-school dropout with a wikipedia-level understanding of concepts who thinks that if he just insults hard enough it'll make him right.

It seems that you've decided to give up even attempting to contribute.

So, wait, to be clear, I pointed out why your question is fundamentally flawed.

And your response is that I have "given up on even attempting to contribute"?

Your question presupposes that they'll be likely to look more critically at a situation that they already think is true when they have more evidence than they have now that it is true. That is a fundamental flaw in the line of questioning you're putting forth here.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

"The simulation argument seeks to demonstrate that given certain assumptions regarding technology, it is very likely that we are now living in a computer simulation."

They question those assumptions, which doesn't refute the argument, which is that given those assumptions it is very likely.

Also from the article:

"The point of the argument is not to demonstrate or prove that we are in a computer simulation - it is actually unfalsifiable given that even if the simulated and non-simulated realities are different, there would be no conceivable way of us determining the difference via an experiment made within a simulated reality (or even a non-simulated reality). The differences between a simulated and non-simulated reality may also be moot depending on one's ideas about what is and is not real. The argument is simply to demonstrate that there is a reasonable chance that we are simulated digitally given these plausible assumptions. Those assumptions may well be false, in which case the probabilities favour us not being simulated. But, their very plausibility means that they cannot be immediately dismissed; the ultimate conclusion is that there is a significant chance this world is, in fact, a computer simulation."

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

Sad, really. I'm not "allergic" to reading. I daresay I know more about these subjects than you do; it may be because I've studied them more than you, or it may be because I'm not someone who revels in my ignorance. Not sure which. I may have an allergy to willful stupidity, though, because yours seems to be making my nose itch.

You were wrong. I showed you were wrong. At least on one point, arguably on more. And you're such a petty, small person, that such a concept bothers you SO MUCH that you can't possibly admit it.

I'm sorry that your desire to think you're better than everyone else is more important than actual discussion. This isn't the first time that you've been reduced to such histrionics.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 6/8/2013 1:54:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:And for the record, rationalwiki even mentions this:

"The simulation argument seeks to demonstrate that given certain assumptions regarding technology, it is very likely that we are now living in a computer simulation."

They question those assumptions, which doesn't refute the argument, which is that given those assumptions it is very likely.

Also from the article:

"The point of the argument is not to demonstrate or prove that we are in a computer simulation - it is actually unfalsifiable given that even if the simulated and non-simulated realities are different, there would be no conceivable way of us determining the difference via an experiment made within a simulated reality (or even a non-simulated reality). The differences between a simulated and non-simulated reality may also be moot depending on one's ideas about what is and is not real. The argument is simply to demonstrate that there is a reasonable chance that we are simulated digitally given these plausible assumptions. Those assumptions may well be false, in which case the probabilities favour us not being simulated. But, their very plausibility means that they cannot be immediately dismissed; the ultimate conclusion is that there is a significant chance this world is, in fact, a computer simulation."

This is actually false. It is possibly to test if we are in a simulation. For instance, if we were to find computer code in equations, this would be evidence us being in a simulation. And that may very well be what Dr James Gates found in a string theory equation.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

At 6/8/2013 1:54:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:And for the record, rationalwiki even mentions this:

"The simulation argument seeks to demonstrate that given certain assumptions regarding technology, it is very likely that we are now living in a computer simulation."

They question those assumptions, which doesn't refute the argument, which is that given those assumptions it is very likely.

Also from the article:

"The point of the argument is not to demonstrate or prove that we are in a computer simulation - it is actually unfalsifiable given that even if the simulated and non-simulated realities are different, there would be no conceivable way of us determining the difference via an experiment made within a simulated reality (or even a non-simulated reality). The differences between a simulated and non-simulated reality may also be moot depending on one's ideas about what is and is not real. The argument is simply to demonstrate that there is a reasonable chance that we are simulated digitally given these plausible assumptions. Those assumptions may well be false, in which case the probabilities favour us not being simulated. But, their very plausibility means that they cannot be immediately dismissed; the ultimate conclusion is that there is a significant chance this world is, in fact, a computer simulation."

This is actually false. It is possibly to test if we are in a simulation. For instance, if we were to find computer code in equations, this would be evidence us being in a simulation. And that may very well be what Dr James Gates found in a string theory equation.

At 6/8/2013 1:54:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:And for the record, rationalwiki even mentions this:

"The simulation argument seeks to demonstrate that given certain assumptions regarding technology, it is very likely that we are now living in a computer simulation."

They question those assumptions, which doesn't refute the argument, which is that given those assumptions it is very likely.

Also from the article:

"The point of the argument is not to demonstrate or prove that we are in a computer simulation - it is actually unfalsifiable given that even if the simulated and non-simulated realities are different, there would be no conceivable way of us determining the difference via an experiment made within a simulated reality (or even a non-simulated reality). The differences between a simulated and non-simulated reality may also be moot depending on one's ideas about what is and is not real. The argument is simply to demonstrate that there is a reasonable chance that we are simulated digitally given these plausible assumptions. Those assumptions may well be false, in which case the probabilities favour us not being simulated. But, their very plausibility means that they cannot be immediately dismissed; the ultimate conclusion is that there is a significant chance this world is, in fact, a computer simulation."

This is actually false. It is possibly to test if we are in a simulation. For instance, if we were to find computer code in equations, this would be evidence us being in a simulation. And that may very well be what Dr James Gates found in a string theory equation.

That might prove it, but there's no real method to falsify; obviously a good program would hide such code.

I can't think of one, so I'll agree with you on that. And a good program would not necessarily hide such code. It could be that doing so is impossible. Or it could be that the simulators want that for us, as simulees, to eventually discover our nature.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

I can't think of one, so I'll agree with you on that. And a good program would not necessarily hide such code. It could be that doing so is impossible. Or it could be that the simulators want that for us, as simulees, to eventually discover our nature.

Oh, totally true.

It's a concept that, like solipsism, is impossible to disprove, though of course hypothetically possible to prove.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 6/7/2013 11:02:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:If you died, and you actually went up to the heavenly gates (or whatever afterlife you happen to believe in) wouldn't it simply be more prudent to assume that you existed in a simulation or something? How would you even know that "God" was telling you the truth? He could simply be some sort of higher entity that had a reason. What actual proof would there be that God is omnipotent, given that you are (A) not omnipotent as well, and (B) cannot categorically confirm anything because your mind is easily manipulable?

I'm not trying to be an obnoxious New Atheist, I'm just posing a problem with the whole "afterlife" thing.

We shouldn't assume that we can possibly know anything about the afterlife. We are entirely dependent on what the Bible says about it, beyond that I have no beliefs or expectations of what it will be like. I can only imagine that the fact that an afterlife exists, will be proof of what I read about in the Bible. I can't imagine that there will be much skepticism in the afterlife.

At 6/7/2013 11:02:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:If you died, and you actually went up to the heavenly gates (or whatever afterlife you happen to believe in) wouldn't it simply be more prudent to assume that you existed in a simulation or something?

(a) Why would that be more prudent?(b) Cogito ergo sum (/je pense donc je suis). The same can be said of "this world" how do you know that anything exists? How do you know your not dreaming? Some philosophers such as Kierkegaard, take it a step further saying that a person cannot even logically prove to himself that he himself exists. At the end of the day, what we believe boils down largely to a psychological appeal, rather than cold hard logic.

How would you even know that "God" was telling you the truth? He could simply be some sort of higher entity that had a reason. What actual proof would there be that God is omnipotent, given that you are (A) not omnipotent as well, and (B) cannot categorically confirm anything because your mind is easily manipulable?

How do you know that anyone is telling the truth, unless you test it out? Most things that we know, we know from other people, rather than personal observation. I don't think it would be too hard for a God to convince or show a person.

I'm not trying to be an obnoxious New Atheist, I'm just posing a problem with the whole "afterlife" thing

Why would this be a problem for theists, if they believed before, why wouldn't they believe now, especially with the apparent confirmation of their previous belief?

I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein